ABSTRACT
Indian trademark law actively protects distinctiveness and prevents consumer deception as fundamental objectives, a mandate that underpins the doctrine of deceptive similarity. It refers to such a degree of resemblance between two marks as is likely to cause confusion or deception among ordinary consumers with respect to the source, origin, or commercial affiliation of the goods or services concerned. The determination of deceptive similarity is therefore not confined to a literal, visual, or textual comparison of competing marks, but entails an assessment of their likely perception by an average purchaser exercising ordinary prudence and possessing imperfect recollection in prevailing market conditions. Through sustained judicial exposition, Indian courts have increasingly endorsed a holistic mode of analysis, according greater weight to phonetic similarity, surrounding trade circumstances, and the overall commercial impression conveyed by the marks, rather than to meticulous or side-by-side dissection. This analytical framework has been further refined through the evolution of multifactor tests, enabling courts to tailor the application of the doctrine to the nature of the goods, the class of consumers, and the realities of the marketplace. Also, in sectors where the consequences of consumer confusion are particularly grave, most notably in relation to pharmaceutical products, courts have applied a heightened threshold of scrutiny in deference to public health considerations. This research highlights that deceptive similarity in Indian trademark law operates as a flexible, context-sensitive, and consumer-oriented standard, calibrated to balance proprietary rights with the imperatives of fair competition and the protection of the public interest.
KEYWORDS: Deceptive similarity, Indian trademark law, distinctiveness, market conditions, public interest
INTRODUCTION
Trademark is one of the areas of Intellectual property that aid us in recognizing a product by differentiating it from other goods and services belonging to the same class. It means the visual symbol in the form of a word, a device, or a label which is applied to the articles of commerce with the sole objective to specify to the consumers that the goods are those manufactured by a specific person and can be very well differentiated from the goods which are manufactured or produced by others. It is applicable to the services that are available to the consumers. Thus, to avail protection, it is very much crucial that a trademark must be distinguishing in nature and should not mean to form any kind of misperception as to the origin of goods or services. In Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt.,[1] it was held that “the difference in the style of the appearance of words on the container or packing which identifies its manufacturers by way of style, colour combination or textures or graphics is definitely substantial or relevant for ascertaining the overall imitation of the container but when a product is having distinguishing colour combination, style, shape, and texture has been present in the market for decades as in this case it is in the market since many years it leads to unavoidable implication of having attained secondary meaning on account of its repute and goodwill earned at huge cost.”
[1] 2003 (27) PTC 478 Del